Half-Orc with Racial Heritage (Kobold) and Tail Terror?


Rules Questions

351 to 400 of 443 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>

Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:

Regardless of the benefits or drawbacks of the feat ...

Regardless of wether it is broken or overpowered...
Regardless of the silliness or cheese...

Humans don't have tails, you need a tail to make a tail attack, and neither feat grows a tail.

Really ? Where does it say either as RAW ?


VargrBoartusk wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:

Regardless of the benefits or drawbacks of the feat ...

Regardless of wether it is broken or overpowered...
Regardless of the silliness or cheese...

Humans don't have tails, you need a tail to make a tail attack, and neither feat grows a tail.

Really ? Where does it say either as RAW ?

Right there in the feat descriptions... read them. No where in either of them does it either explicitly say "you grow a tail" nor does it say implicitly that, "you possess any body features necessarily presumed by this feat". As I said in the other thread regarding the same subject, the issue here is the idea of the Schrodinger's Tail; it doesn't exist until some point at which it had always existed.

Grand Lodge

Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:

Regardless of the benefits or drawbacks of the feat ...

Regardless of wether it is broken or overpowered...
Regardless of the silliness or cheese...

Humans don't have tails, you need a tail to make a tail attack, and neither feat grows a tail.

Who says humans don't have tails?


The description block for the kobold race calls out that they have a tail. That's also true for catfolk, ratfolk, merfolk, and vanara. While the kitsune do not mention it in the descriptive text, it's implied they have one because of the "extra tail" statement in the racial Magical Tail feat.

The descriptive text for the human race never mentions a tail. And while it's true that in reality some humans have vestigial tails, they are generally immobile stumps of flesh that are a couple of inches long at most - not something you could use as a weapon.

Now, all that said, compare Tail Terror to the feat I mentioned earlier - the kitsune racial feat Magical Tail. The description there explicitly states that you grow an extra tail. I would allow a human with Racial Heritage (kitsune) to take that feat and suddenly sprout a fluffy fox tail (if you have no tail, any tail is an extra). Why? The feat's descriptive text says that's what happens. Tail Terror includes no such text.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Espy Kismet wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:

Regardless of the benefits or drawbacks of the feat ...

Regardless of wether it is broken or overpowered...
Regardless of the silliness or cheese...

Humans don't have tails, you need a tail to make a tail attack, and neither feat grows a tail.

Who says humans don't have tails?

Anyone with at least a 1st grade education.

Grand Lodge

Kazaan wrote:


Anyone with at least a 1st grade education.

Only because they lack the understanding of combining ones genetics with a fantastical creature in a world of witchcraft and sorcery. Not to mention, while in a world were everything is mundane, humans are capable of growing small stubby tails.

Most people with at least a first grade education also know that humans explode if they jump out of a plane at a couple thousand feat and hit the ground with out a parachute.

Also anyone with at least a 1st grade education knows you can't have sex with a lizard.

But if its that the entry doesn't mention humans have a tail in the racial book, might I point out that there is nothing that points out Kitsune have hair? So obviously Kitsune are bared from taking White Haired Witch, Prehensial Hair and using the spell Strangling hair.

Kobold, Tengu, Gippli, The undercommon gnomes, and a few other races are as well.

Unless we want to go with implied. Because well.. Magical tail implies kitsune had one. Even though they were never mentioned to have one earlier.


@Espy Kismet: The kitsune description implies they have two forms - one that is of an average human, and one of an anthropomorphic fox.

The description of the fox form states that it has fur - i.e., hair. And for the human portion, we need to refer back to the human description, which also states that the form has (or can have) hair.

As to the others - kobold, tengu, etc.? You're right, it's not mentioned in the description.

So I'd say they couldn't by RAW use those abilities. It'd be the same by RAW for a human Witch who said they had alopecia universalis (medical condition meaning that you have no hair whatsoever on your body) to take those abilities, or would allow someone playing a merfolk to take a hypothetical feat the description of which implied you needed toes to use it.

As to the 'implied' tail for kitsune? You're right, it's not spelled-out explicitly in their description - it's implied by the text of the feat and by how they are commonly described in sources outside the game world.

But I don't find that to be a convincing argument that Tail Terror implies you grow a tail if you don't have one - especially when the Magical Tail feat actually does explicitly state you grow one.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm not convincing that tail terror does either. Only that in character creation its possible to have had one. Especially with some screwed up kobold/human genetics going on.

Sure, Racial Heritage doesn't specifically state you grow one. But character creation doesn't specifically state you couldn't have been born with one.

Why does your character have a big tail? Well back in the war my grandfather got really lonely while out on the road fighting against the enemy. When he happened across a brothel. Cat Tas Trophy, was the name of it. He said you should have seen the freaks in there.. And it was a pretty cheap brothel at that even, course with the freaks helping to get your freak on, it was understandable. Anycase, there was this one female kobold.. Kzzphvlip.. Or Kelly as the rest of the girls called her. My grandfather became her favorite. He would visit her every week to get a little reptile action. Somewhere along the line though my mother in all her mutated glory was born.. Who ended up running away with my father from the brothel when they had me. I grew up slightly different from other kids, what with the tail and all, and a mother that looked kinda like a lizardfolk, don't ever get her mad though. I was interested in traps and trickery, preferring not to fight the bullies but to utterly destroy their souls and wills to fight me with my cleverly design traps.

To signify this.. I took Racial heritage: Kobold. Because my grandpa got it on with a kobold.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Hence, the example of the Blungeoneer Feat. You still need the required weapon and it isn't given to you.

You need the required tail and it isn't given to you.

Not sure why you would want to twink this into something it is not.

The Racial Heritage feat requires the player to use some common sense. If, for example, your a gnome, the character won't suddenly gain new racial spell abilities just by switching them out. (First Memories) It is this elusive common sense that some here are ignoring that says to use a tail attack, one must have a tail. Just as a feat does not give you a weapon (Bludeoneer), it does not sprout you a tail(Tail Terror).

My comparison stands, body part or weapon.


Humans don't explode if they hit the ground too hard. At best, they burst; that's different.

Reptiles can grow hair; some have naturally hairy crests and both hair and scale is made primarily out of the protein keratin (along with feathers, fingernails, claws, and many kinds of horn). Prehensile hair, at least, specifically says you "grow out your hair" so if your hair is exceedingly small to start with, it grows in when you use the hex. Moreover, Dragons (the alleged progenitors of kobolds) are often depicted themselves as having hairy crests and beards.

Once again, I'd have absolutely no problem with a player making a character that doesn't normally have a tail or hair or whatnot as having benign body features with no mechanical significance to justify taking a feat or ability that grants mechanical significance later. What I'm objecting to is idea that the feat that lets you use a body feature in a mechanical way will cause you to "sprout" said body feature should you be lacking if the ability doesn't specify that you "sprout" it; or that you have a "Schrodinger's Tail" that was absent from all consideration until you took a feat that relies on having a tail, in which case it shifts to you having always had the tail. If it says you "grow" claws which you can use as a natural attack, that's fine. If it says, "your [preexisting] claws are now strong enough to make natural attacks", you have to provide your own claws. Can a Human have claws that, for the time being, aren't mechanically significant? Absolutely. Just because a Human hasn't taken Racial Heritage doesn't mean he doesn't have a non-Human ancestor; it just means it bears no mechanical significance. A Human can be born with a smattering of scales on their body and small claws that can't be used as natural weapons. No one may know why at the time and he may be outcast or ridiculed for his deformities. He may go his whole life never having known his great great grandmother was a Kobold. He never learns to harness that heritage to his mechanical benefit. He still has the vestigial claws and scales that serve no mechanical purpose. But should he realize his heritage and introspect on it, he might learn to harness it to his mechanical benefit and utilize the features he was born with. But a new tail won't suddenly burst forth violently from his butt because of it unless he takes some feat or ability that either explicitly states or implies that a tail bursts forth violently from his butt. And it's the responsibility of the player to address these things; even if it's as simple as he has a tail but kept it wrapped around his waist all the time so people wouldn't notice and comment on it. This is where the Roleplaying aspect enters the Roleplaying Game. If it didn't, it would just be a Game; there would be no fluff at all and everything would be hard-coded and stringently codified; little more than a board game with very complicated and detailed rules. Nothing would be subject to GM fiat as there would be no social interaction at all; just two teams playing against each other in a purely mechanical fashion.

Grand Lodge

Ah, then we're pretty much of aliked mind here. Though, I'd say that humans do have claws.. we just call them finger nails.. or if we cut back the skin, our finger tips. (After all, a human skeleton gains claw attacks)

But overall this is one of the reasons I think Racial heritage really should have been a 1st level feat. You either have the heritage or you don't.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Previous post above was responding to a post further up the page...

You guys are Fast and Furious posters.


Xaratherus wrote:

The description block for the kobold race calls out that they have a tail. That's also true for catfolk, ratfolk, merfolk, and vanara. While the kitsune do not mention it in the descriptive text, it's implied they have one because of the "extra tail" statement in the racial Magical Tail feat.

And if this is true many races don't have arms and legs because the descriptive fluff block doesn't mention them. You can't have it both ways.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Maps, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:

Regardless of the benefits or drawbacks of the feat ...

Regardless of wether it is broken or overpowered...
Regardless of the silliness or cheese...

Humans don't have tails, you need a tail to make a tail attack, and neither feat grows a tail.

Humans by default have no tails.

Humans with Racial Heritage (Kobold) have some cosmetic kobold characteristics, so they may or may not have tails (but they can't do anything useful with them in the absence of other feats).

Humans with Racial Heritage (Kobold) and Tail Terror would have to have tails (thereby resolving the ambiguity in regard to the Racial Heritage feat).

The fact that the above interpretation is both possible and reasonable, combined with the fact that Durngrun's interpretation is equally possible and reasonable, is what makes the entire issue FAQ-worthy.

Dark Archive

VargrBoartusk wrote:
Xaratherus wrote:

The description block for the kobold race calls out that they have a tail. That's also true for catfolk, ratfolk, merfolk, and vanara. While the kitsune do not mention it in the descriptive text, it's implied they have one because of the "extra tail" statement in the racial Magical Tail feat.

And if this is true many races don't have arms and legs because the descriptive fluff block doesn't mention them. You can't have it both ways.

Type: Humanoid wrote:


A humanoid usually has two arms, two legs, and one head, or a human-like torso, arms, and a head.

http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/monsters/creatureTypes.html#_humano id

Should put your worries to rest, it's okay, your character has arms and legs, I know you were about to trash it.

Dark Archive

VargrBoartusk wrote:
Xaratherus wrote:

The description block for the kobold race calls out that they have a tail. That's also true for catfolk, ratfolk, merfolk, and vanara. While the kitsune do not mention it in the descriptive text, it's implied they have one because of the "extra tail" statement in the racial Magical Tail feat.

And if this is true many races don't have arms and legs because the descriptive fluff block doesn't mention them. You can't have it both ways.

You are right, it is not called out in the fluff block, it is in the creature type:

Quote:

Humanoid

A humanoid usually has two arms, two legs, and one head, or a human-like torso, arms, and a head. Humanoids have few or no supernatural or extraordinary abilities, but most can speak and usually have well-developed societies. They are usually Small or Medium (with the exception of giants). Every humanoid creature also has a specific subtype to match its race, such as human, giant, goblinoid, reptilian, or tengu.


Espy Kismet wrote:

Ah, then we're pretty much of aliked mind here. Though, I'd say that humans do have claws.. we just call them finger nails.. or if we cut back the skin, our finger tips. (After all, a human skeleton gains claw attacks)

But overall this is one of the reasons I think Racial heritage really should have been a 1st level feat. You either have the heritage or you don't.

As I said, having the heritage and drawing mechanical benefit from the heritage are two very different things. How many characters live their whole lives and die never having known they had a non-human ancestor? How many find out but never introspect and derive power from it? How many latent sorcerers are there that never uncover their magic potential? How about those who just dabble into it with Eldritch Heritage rather than actual Sorcerer class levels? No need to take Racial Heritage right at level 1 because it could be much later in a person's life and adventuring career that they recognize and draw upon their racial heritage. But don't sit there and call upon your Schrodinger's Tail at level 7 without at least the bare minimum of contrivance (always wrapped around the waist under clothes at the very least).


Happler wrote:
VargrBoartusk wrote:
Xaratherus wrote:

The description block for the kobold race calls out that they have a tail. That's also true for catfolk, ratfolk, merfolk, and vanara. While the kitsune do not mention it in the descriptive text, it's implied they have one because of the "extra tail" statement in the racial Magical Tail feat.

And if this is true many races don't have arms and legs because the descriptive fluff block doesn't mention them. You can't have it both ways.

You are right, it is not called out in the fluff block, it is in the creature type:

Quote:

Humanoid

A humanoid usually has two arms, two legs, and one head, or a human-like torso, arms, and a head. Humanoids have few or no supernatural or extraordinary abilities, but most can speak and usually have well-developed societies. They are usually Small or Medium (with the exception of giants). Every humanoid creature also has a specific subtype to match its race, such as human, giant, goblinoid, reptilian, or tengu.

Aww...

I was loving the argument: "I get to have a tail or no one has any arms or legs!"


David knott 242 wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:

Regardless of the benefits or drawbacks of the feat ...

Regardless of wether it is broken or overpowered...
Regardless of the silliness or cheese...

Humans don't have tails, you need a tail to make a tail attack, and neither feat grows a tail.

Humans by default have no tails.

Humans with Racial Heritage (Kobold) have some cosmetic kobold characteristics, so they may or may not have tails (but they can't do anything useful with them in the absence of other feats).

Humans with Racial Heritage (Kobold) and Tail Terror would have to have tails (thereby resolving the ambiguity in regard to the Racial Heritage feat).

The fact that the above interpretation is both possible and reasonable, combined with the fact that Durngrun's interpretation is equally possible and reasonable, is what makes the entire issue FAQ-worthy.

Except your interpretation is not RAW (rules as written). I have no problem with someone allowing it in their game. I would allow it in mine. The RAW however is unchanged. Neither feat gives you a tail.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Espy Kismet wrote:


So obviously Kitsune are bared from taking White Haired Witch, Prehensial Hair and using the spell Strangling hair.

Kobold, Tengu, Gippli, The undercommon gnomes, and a few other races are as well.

Oh man, so going to make an Emo Kermit Grippli witch now and pitch it just to see the look on the other DM's face before I pull out a real character.

For what it's worth I think the only opinion that matters is the DMs in this case. I personally agree with everyone stating that the feat would not grow you a tail. I don't think taking racial heritage for a winged race and then taking a glide racial feat would suddenly let me grow wings either. (In my opinion) That's just silly, but if it's your group's brand of silly then I say let your freak flag fly.


Happler wrote:
VargrBoartusk wrote:
Xaratherus wrote:

The description block for the kobold race calls out that they have a tail. That's also true for catfolk, ratfolk, merfolk, and vanara. While the kitsune do not mention it in the descriptive text, it's implied they have one because of the "extra tail" statement in the racial Magical Tail feat.

And if this is true many races don't have arms and legs because the descriptive fluff block doesn't mention them. You can't have it both ways.

You are right, it is not called out in the fluff block, it is in the creature type:

Quote:

Humanoid

A humanoid usually has two arms, two legs, and one head, or a human-like torso, arms, and a head. Humanoids have few or no supernatural or extraordinary abilities, but most can speak and usually have well-developed societies. They are usually Small or Medium (with the exception of giants). Every humanoid creature also has a specific subtype to match its race, such as human, giant, goblinoid, reptilian, or tengu.

Usually of course not actually meaning anything..

Dark Archive

VargrBoartusk wrote:
Usually of course not actually meaning anything..

Really? If we're being pedantic then usually means "under normal conditions", so yes, humanoid player characters in Pathfinder have arms and legs unless specifically stated otherwise... if your argument has descended to "Tail Terror gives me a tail or no-one has arms and legs!" then I seriously suggest you take a step back, breathe and reconsider the point.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Torbyne wrote:

If i am a Half-Orc with this feat combo at level 3 is my Tail Slap a D4 as per the RAW or is it D6 as i am a medium sized creature and the natural attack would size up with me? Likewise, if i continue dragoning it up with feats and i get Draconic Paragon does my fly speed or maneuverability change at all? i think its yes to the first and no to the second since its only base speed that is normally affected by size. Some one poke holes in my thinking?

FYI, its all for a Freebooter, Natural Combat style, Toothy, Horc Ranger concept. Descended from a long line of adventurous adventurers.

So... Going with the first post of the thread that started all this.

1- If you can somehow get a tail to use with Tail Terror, it would be damage appropriate to the character's size. (1d6 for the half-Orc is what you said, right?)

2- Your speed would be according to the size of the character.

Keep in mind that a half-orc does not have a tail to use with the Tail Terror feat, so you would need a way to get a tail, such as a Monkey Belt or a feat that gains you one.

The feat I was thinking of gives a familiar an evolution from the Eidolon Evolutions, not the character.

So, we have, at last count, over 300 posts that circles around "Schrodinger's Tail" as it was referred to. Why?


VargrBoartusk wrote:
Happler wrote:
VargrBoartusk wrote:
Xaratherus wrote:

The description block for the kobold race calls out that they have a tail. That's also true for catfolk, ratfolk, merfolk, and vanara. While the kitsune do not mention it in the descriptive text, it's implied they have one because of the "extra tail" statement in the racial Magical Tail feat.

And if this is true many races don't have arms and legs because the descriptive fluff block doesn't mention them. You can't have it both ways.

You are right, it is not called out in the fluff block, it is in the creature type:

Quote:

Humanoid

A humanoid usually has two arms, two legs, and one head, or a human-like torso, arms, and a head. Humanoids have few or no supernatural or extraordinary abilities, but most can speak and usually have well-developed societies. They are usually Small or Medium (with the exception of giants). Every humanoid creature also has a specific subtype to match its race, such as human, giant, goblinoid, reptilian, or tengu.

Usually of course not actually meaning anything..

'Usually' indicates a normative, and that anything else is an exception.

If I tell you that I usually roleplay on Fridays, then common sense states you can assume that if it's Friday, I'll be roleplaying. I might not always roleplay on Fridays, but if I tell you I usually do and then you assume that I'll be available frequently on Fridays then you're not acting in a sensible fashion.

Choosing to ignore that 'usually' has a very distinct and important meaning in order to try and argue a point isn't a winning strategy.


Suthainn wrote:
VargrBoartusk wrote:
Usually of course not actually meaning anything..
Really? If we're being pedantic then usually means "under normal conditions", so yes, humanoid player characters in Pathfinder have arms and legs unless specifically stated otherwise... if your argument has descended to "Tail Terror gives me a tail or no-one has arms and legs!" then I seriously suggest you take a step back, breathe and reconsider the point.

Actually my point the entire time has been that RAW you can probably read it both ways because the language used is bad. RAI its confusing because the feat is made for you to take another races feats.. Tail terror as written doesn't require a tail to take and its squidgy weather or not you'd need one to use it. I think it's something that cant be decided either way until something official is made.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
VargrBoartusk wrote:
Suthainn wrote:
VargrBoartusk wrote:
Usually of course not actually meaning anything..
Really? If we're being pedantic then usually means "under normal conditions", so yes, humanoid player characters in Pathfinder have arms and legs unless specifically stated otherwise... if your argument has descended to "Tail Terror gives me a tail or no-one has arms and legs!" then I seriously suggest you take a step back, breathe and reconsider the point.
Actually my point the entire time has been that RAW you can probably read it both ways because the language used is bad. RAI its confusing because the feat is made for you to take another races feats.. Tail terror as written doesn't require a tail to take and its squidgy weather or not you'd need one to use it. I think it's something that cant be decided either way until something official is made.

I will repeat what I posted above.

The Racial Heritage feat requires the player to use some common sense. If, for example, your a gnome, the character won't suddenly gain new racial spell abilities just by switching them out. (First Memories) It is this elusive common sense that some here are ignoring that says to use a tail attack, one must have a tail. Just as a feat does not give you a weapon (Bludeoneer), it does not sprout you a tail(Tail Terror).

Dark Archive

The Devs have repeatedly said that common sense (however uncommon it may be these days) should always be applied to reading the rules and they hope that people are able to manage that rather than arguing over the minutiae of the text as we seem to be doing here.

Whilst it can certainly, with some skewing, be argued both ways and at my own table I'd almost certainly allow it in some form after appropriate conversation with a player, as written and applying common sense imo the rules for Tail Terror & Racial Heritage do not seem to indicate a player can magically sprout a tail where none was before. We can argue the specifics of each word forever but unless the Devs comment I don't think there's anyway for either interpretation to be 'proven'.

Shadow Lodge

VargrBoartusk wrote:
Suthainn wrote:
VargrBoartusk wrote:
Usually of course not actually meaning anything..
Really? If we're being pedantic then usually means "under normal conditions", so yes, humanoid player characters in Pathfinder have arms and legs unless specifically stated otherwise... if your argument has descended to "Tail Terror gives me a tail or no-one has arms and legs!" then I seriously suggest you take a step back, breathe and reconsider the point.
Actually my point the entire time has been that RAW you can probably read it both ways because the language used is bad. RAI its confusing because the feat is made for you to take another races feats.. Tail terror as written doesn't require a tail to take and its squidgy weather or not you'd need one to use it. I think it's something that cant be decided either way until something official is made.

It is not "squidgy" on whether a tail is required. The description makes it clear a tail is required. Just like every other feat that says you can use X to do Y means you have to have X to do Y.


PatientWolf wrote:
VargrBoartusk wrote:
Suthainn wrote:
VargrBoartusk wrote:
Usually of course not actually meaning anything..
Really? If we're being pedantic then usually means "under normal conditions", so yes, humanoid player characters in Pathfinder have arms and legs unless specifically stated otherwise... if your argument has descended to "Tail Terror gives me a tail or no-one has arms and legs!" then I seriously suggest you take a step back, breathe and reconsider the point.
Actually my point the entire time has been that RAW you can probably read it both ways because the language used is bad. RAI its confusing because the feat is made for you to take another races feats.. Tail terror as written doesn't require a tail to take and its squidgy weather or not you'd need one to use it. I think it's something that cant be decided either way until something official is made.
It is not "squidgy" on whether a tail is required. The description makes it clear a tail is required. Just like every other feat that says you can use X to do Y means you have to have X to do Y.

And it's wonderful that you feel that way but if you'll excuse me and the others who disagree were not going to just up and agree with you or take your word for it.


@VargrBoartusk

Who are you trying to convince? If this is for a home game the DM is going to have to make a call. If this is for PFS, you will never get support for this idea. Everytime you go to play you are just going to ruin everyone else's time arguing to get your tail attack.

The majority opinion on the rules here is that you must have a feature to benefit from a boost to that feature, and the boost itself does not grant that feature.

Ex. Weapon Focus (dagger). You must have a dagger to get the +1 on your attack. Having weapon focus (dagger) doesn't get you a dagger, you must have one via some other means.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Both of these whole threads are so frustrating.

They pretty much run down the old 3.5 line of "it doesn't say I can't" stance.

Tail Terror growing you a tail is indistinguishable from dead people taking actions.


James Risner wrote:

Both of these whole threads are so frustrating.

They pretty much run down the old 3.5 line of "it doesn't say I can't" stance.

Tail Terror growing you a tail is indistinguishable from dead people taking actions.

This is more of a "it says you can" thing.


RJGrady wrote:
James Risner wrote:

Both of these whole threads are so frustrating.

They pretty much run down the old 3.5 line of "it doesn't say I can't" stance.

Tail Terror growing you a tail is indistinguishable from dead people taking actions.

This is more of a "it says you can" thing.

No, it's not. In order to perform a tail slap, you must have a tail. You're arguing, "Even though I don't have a tail, it says I can do a tail slap - so I must be able to grow a tail because it doesn't say I can't."


RJGrady wrote:
James Risner wrote:

Both of these whole threads are so frustrating.

They pretty much run down the old 3.5 line of "it doesn't say I can't" stance.

Tail Terror growing you a tail is indistinguishable from dead people taking actions.

This is more of a "it says you can" thing.

Really? Where does it say you can make a tail attack without a tail? Where does it say half-orcs have tails?


Everyone who has Tail Terror has a strengthened tail. You know where it says it because I've quoted it like four times now.

It says

Quote:


You can make a tail slap attack with your tail.

So if you think it can't, you need a good reason. "I accept the description of kobolds as evidence but not the description of Tail Terror," does not fly with me. Maybe someone else doesn't have a problem with your supposedly ironclad interpretation.

It says you can make a tail slap. That's the RAW. You're making a RAI argument, that the feat was intended for kobolds and that the feat wasn't written assuming it would cause you to sprout a tail. But by the RAW, it actually could.


And everyone who has Extended Spell can cast spells that last twice as long. You know where it says it because it's been quoted to you at least three times now.

But you've obviously made up your mind and no one is going to dissuade you, so I see no reason to continue discussing it when all we're doing is trotting out the same arguments and insinuating that we've already proved those arguments to be false.


RJGrady wrote:

Everyone who has Tail Terror has a strengthened tail. You know where it says it because I've quoted it like four times now.

It says

Quote:


You can make a tail slap attack with your tail.

So if you think it can't, you need a good reason. "I accept the description of kobolds as evidence but not the description of Tail Terror," does not fly with me. Maybe someone else doesn't have a problem with your supposedly ironclad interpretation.

It says you can make a tail slap. That's the RAW. You're making a RAI argument, that the feat was intended for kobolds and that the feat wasn't written assuming it would cause you to sprout a tail. But by the RAW, it actually could.

With your tail. Half-orcs do not have tails. You have repeatedly failed to say where that tail comes from. The feat is clearly written for kobolds, hence the requirement: Kolbold. If you think that is RAI, not RAW, then clearly you fail to understand what words mean (or acronyms).


Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
You have repeatedly failed to say where that tail comes from.

Right here:

Quote:


Tail Terror (Combat, Kobold)
You have strengthened your tail enough to make slap attacks with it.
Prerequisites: Base attack bonus +1, kobold.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

You keep using that argument, I do not think it means what you think it means.


RJGrady wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
You have repeatedly failed to say where that tail comes from.

Right here:

Quote:


Tail Terror (Combat, Kobold)
You have strengthened your tail enough to make slap attacks with it.
Prerequisites: Base attack bonus +1, kobold.

So just to be clear. You believe that sentence causes a character to grow a tail (presuming they didn't have one already)?

Again, it is saying, in writing, that character now grows a tail if he previously didn't have one?
I'm not asking the intent of the feat but the actual written words.


No good Durngrun. This is where they seek to obfuscate the point or redirect the conversation.


<sarcasm>

Clearly, this is an excellent and shrewd way to gain a tail for human and half-breed gunslingers without having to dip alchemist.

</sarcasm>

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Tail Terror (Combat)

You have strengthened your tail enough to make slap attacks with it.

Prerequisites: Base attack bonus +1, kobold.

Benefit: You can make a tail slap attack with your tail. This is a secondary natural attack that deals 1d4 points of bludgeoning damage. Furthermore, you can augment your tail slap attack with a kobold tail attachment. For the purpose of weapon feats, you are considered proficient with all kobold tail attachments.

There ya go... direct from the PFSRD.

The main crux of the discussion is the fact that a Half-Orc is taking the feat and expects to gain a tail because of it.


This is more of a "the rules don't say anything about this" thing. Tail Terror was written assuming only kobolds could take it. The RAW doesn't state you grow a tail or that you need a tail to gain the tail slap, it implies you already have one. If you don't have a tail, the feat makes a false presumption and you need to look at the RAI. Problem is that human heritage offers no clue to the intent of how that feat is meant to work in these situations.

This is a question that should never come up. Human heritage should address how to handle racial feats that grant natural attacks, but it doesn't. Anatomy prerequisites, such as needing a hand to gain a claw attack or needing a mouth to gain a bite attack, is something implied by game text but never stated explicitly. So I'm of the opinion that there is no answer to be found in the RAW or RAI. It's something unforeseen by the writers that requires developer clarification or a call by the GM.


Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:


So just to be clear. You believe that sentence causes a character to grow a tail (presuming they didn't have one already)?

Yup.

And if you don't see the same thing, there is probably not an argument I can make to convince you.


RJGrady wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:


So just to be clear. You believe that sentence causes a character to grow a tail (presuming they didn't have one already)?

Yup.

And if you don't see the same thing, there is probably not an argument I can make to convince you.

If you were playing a human who had his arm severed could you take two-weapon fighting to get your arm back?

If you were playing a kobold who had his tail severed could you take Tail Terror to get your tail back?

Project Manager

Removed a post. Please keep it civil.


RJGrady wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:


So just to be clear. You believe that sentence causes a character to grow a tail (presuming they didn't have one already)?

Yup.

And if you don't see the same thing, there is probably not an argument I can make to convince you.

Can you at least see you're reading for intent and not what is actually written?


This thread continues to be epic nonsense.

Can people please point me to the post we're all hitting the FAQ button on so that this is more constructive than a circular sharing of disparate views?

351 to 400 of 443 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder RPG / Rules Questions / Half-Orc with Racial Heritage (Kobold) and Tail Terror? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.